WikiDiscuss

WikiDiscuss


posts: 84

The text of the sentence:

mi nelci tu'a lonu do tavla fi lodu'u kei kei mu'i lodu'u losi'o kei bebna kei

Is {tu'a lonu...} intentional? Is it needed?

mi'e clsn

posts: 92

I humbly suggest removing the {tu'a}. Before {lo nu} it's an odd construction that doesn't seem to be reflected in your translation.

Also, I think you need a {cu} before the bebna; otherwise the {si'o}-abstraction becomes a seltau.

mu'o mi'e komfo,amonan

posts: 80

> I humbly suggest removing the {tu'a}. Before {lo nu} it's an odd construction that doesn't seem to be reflected in your translation.

Please see this post.

> Also, I think you need a {cu} before the bebna; otherwise the {si'o}-abstraction becomes a seltau.

Thanks for catching that. With the addition of two {ku}s, the sentence can now be parsed by jboski. .ui

> mu'o mi'e komfo,amonan

posts: 2388

Well, we can argue a bit about whether a thing
can be good or not (rather than some property of
or fact about the thing). There are several
places remaining which have to be (for logic
sake) about abstractions but which are not so
marked . "Have to be" because they are opaque,
that is they may be about nonexistents without
affecting the truth-value of the whole. Saying
that x1 is good does not seem to be the same sort
of problem. The claim that unicorns are good is
simply false if there are no unicorns, whereas it
may still be true that I talked about unicorns
(as, indeed, I just did). The problem with
saying x1 is good is not a logical one but rather
one of analysis of a situation. I don't see that
Lojban needs to be wedded to a particular
philosophy (teleological ethics, say) in the same
way it needs to be wedded to logical points.
{nelci2} is a paradigm, however, of an opaque
place (which Lojban in principle — though not
always in fact) deals with by requiring that the
sumti there refer, however, obscurely, to an
abstraction, an intensional object.



> Re: Re: Fractal Lojban Sentences
> > The text of the sentence:
>
> > mi nelci tu'a lonu do tavla fi lodu'u kei
> kei mu'i lodu'u losi'o kei bebna kei
>
> > Is {tu'a lonu...} intentional? Is it needed?
>
> > mi'e clsn
>
> Yes, the {tu'a} was used intentionally, because
> it is logically accurate to use {tu'a} in this
> case.
>
> Take the gismu {facki}, for exmaple. Its place
> structure is ''x1 discovers/finds out x2 (du'u)
> about subject/object x3''. The x2 place of
> {facki} is explicitly defined to be an
> abstraction, because you can't discover or find
> an object, but only ''something about an
> object'' (a fact, {lodu'u}). In English, you
> might say "I find my hat.". But it Lojban
> (even though {mi facki le mi mapku} is
> gramamtical), this sentence is only
> properly expressed {mi facki tu'a le mi
> mapku} (assuming you mean something like "I
> find (where is) my hat") or {mi facki fi le mi
> mapku} (specifying the object about which the
> discovery is made, but leaving the discovery to
> be inferred).
>
> In this sense, gismu like {xamgu}, {nitcu}, and
> {nelci}, whose x1 places should be {ka}s or
> other abstractions in order to be logically
> correct, are overgenerally defined. A
> thing is not good for something
> else, you can't need things, and you
> can't like things; but ''something
> about a thing'' can be good for some
> purpose (abstract), you can need
> something about a thing for a given
> purpose, and you can like ''something about
> a thing''. Compare these to {badri}, {djica},
> and the x3 place of {nitcu}, which are already
> defined to be sufficiently abstract. Gismu
> like {prami}, which allows an object or
> abstraction as its x2 place, walk the fine line
> between being sufficiently and insufficiently
> constrained.
>
> In my opinion, not using abstractions in
> places such as these is malglico and,
> technically, illogical. I think that the
> over-generality of these gismu definitions
> (along with a number of other features of the
> language) reflects the fact that the creaters
> of Lojban were primarily native speakers of
> English. When I speak Lojban, I try as much as
> possible to avoid {glikemnorlogji} and to be as
> logically correct as possible. After all,
> that's one of the major reasons I decided to
> learn to speak Lojban!
>
> ----
>
> Reply Link:
>
<http://www.lojban.org/tikitiki-view_forum_thread.php?forumId=1&comments_reply_threadId=5855&comments_parentId=5852&post_reply=1#form>
>
>
>
>
>
>



posts: 80

> Well, we can argue a bit about whether a thing

-snip-

Hm. Do you toke while surfing lojban.org? confused I can make little sense of (something about wink) your post, save that you seem to be disagreeing with me...somehow.

I don't see how constraining place definitions to be logical is being philosophical. Besides, Lojban imposes philosophy (mandating the use of different kinds of causation, to cite one example) on its speakers as it is.

Assuming that {xamgu1} is not constrained beyond its current definition, unicorns can be xmagu, as {le pavyseljirna cu xamgu tu'a loi lisri}.

Also, the "preview" button is your friend.

posts: 2388

I seem to be getting you in duplicate for some
reason.



> Re: Fractal Lojban Sentences
> > Well, we can argue a bit about whether a
> thing
>
> -snip-
>
> Hm. Do you toke while surfing lojban.org?

Alas, no. It might help in seeing the sense of
some of the things out here, but I don't do it.

> confused I can make little sense of
> (something about wink) your post, save that
> you seem to be disagreeing with me...somehow.

Not exactly disagreeing, just asking for more
justification. To say that the proper subjection
of evaluation is not a thing but a property of
aor fact about a thing is not a matter of logic
but of a certain axiological theory (one I don't
subscribe to, obviously) and I don't see the need
to embed that theory in Lojban, which ought to be
able to express it and its rivals without
prejudice.

> I don't see how constraining place definitions
> to be logical is being philosophical. Besides,
> Lojban imposes philosophy (mandating the use of
> different kinds of causation, to cite one
> example) on its speakers as it is.

This seems to me to be less philosophy than
noticing that very different kinds of things are
called reasons or causes for something (objects,
events, utterances, intentions, and so on). The
variety is more to allow the distinctions to be
made (as they cannot be easily in English,
say)than to force them to be made.

> Assuming that {xamgu1} is not constrained
> beyond its current definition, unicorns can
> be xmagu, as {le pavyseljirna cu xamgu tu'a
> loi lisri}.

Well, Hell, anything will work with {le}. But
notice that {lo pavyseljirna cu xamgu loi lisri}
(I am not sure why the {tu'a} here either) is
false when there are no unicorns — unless it is
taken — as I assume it would be — as some
nonrealis mode "Unicorns would be ...."

{tu'a] has typically been used in two situations:
when the meaning requires an abstraction
({sucta1} for example)or to avoid unmarked opaque
places ({nitcu2}, say). The latter involves
using transparent places with intensional object
mentioned in place of opaque places with
extensional objects. It has a double advantage:
all the usual logical rules still work and the
problem areas are marked. Unfortunately, this
program has not been carried through completely
-- there are opaque places which are not
restricted to abstractions. Many of these are
careless malglico, copying subject raising for
example, but a few seem to be real cases that got
overlooked. I don't see {xamgu} as falling into
this problem (indeed, it clearly does not) nor
into the first case (I do agree, obviously, that
there are some errors due to malglicitude).

> Also, the "preview" button is your friend.

I don't have a "preview" button and, if I did, it
would not help: I am as bad an editor/proofreader
as I am a typist.



posts: 80

> Not exactly disagreeing, just asking for more

> justification.

Boy. That would have to be quite a lengthy post. I think I should probably make sure I understand what you're expressing before undertaking such an endeavor...!

> events, utterances, intentions, and so on). The

> variety is more to allow the distinctions to be

> made (as they cannot be easily in English,

> say)than to force them to be made.

I agree that, if people find certain semantics to be useful, such constructs should not be excluded from the Lojban language... but only to the extent that such semantics don't entail the immigration of semantic warts from the source language into Lojban. IMHO, Lojban needs to be (and, in fact, is) picky about meaning in order to retain its status as a {logji bangu}. Rejecting {baukemnorlogji}, I think, is one of its pursuant responsibilities.

If you can find an example in which a non-abstract {xamgu1} or {xamgu2} makes sense, I will reconsider my position. But I've never (that I can recall) seen one, and none come immediately to mind.

je'u pe'i tu'a lo pavyseljirna cu xamgu tu'a loi lisri

.ini'ibo lo pavyseljirna cu zasti fi tu'a lo menli

> places ({nitcu2}, say). The latter involves

> using transparent places with intensional object

> mentioned in place of opaque places with

> extensional objects. It has a double advantage:

I don't understand your use of the words opaque and transparent. In what sense do you mean them?

> I don't have a "preview" button and, if I did, it

It's part of the form... right next to the "post" button. (I refer, in particular, to inclusion of ">" at random places in quoted lines.)

posts: 2388




> tu'a places WAS Re: Fractal Lojban Sentences
> > Not exactly disagreeing, just asking for more
>
> > justification.
>
> Boy. That would have to be quite a lengthy
> post. I think I should probably make sure I
> understand what you're expressing before
> undertaking such an endeavor...!
>
> > events, utterances, intentions, and so on).
> The
>
> > variety is more to allow the distinctions to
> be
>
> > made (as they cannot be easily in English,
>
> > say)than to force them to be made.
>
> I agree that, if people find certain semantics
> to be useful, such constructs should not be
> excluded from the Lojban language... but only
> to the extent that such semantics don't
> entail the immigration of semantic warts from
> the source language into Lojban.

I suspect a problem here would be to separate out
what are warts from what are just common
expressions which we find objectionable for some
reason. The only real warts are those which lead
to logical mistakes; theoretical diagreements
don't count (or at least don't automatically do
so).


> IMHO, Lojban
> needs to be (and, in fact, is) picky about
> meaning in order to retain its status as a
> {logji bangu}. Rejecting {baukemnorlogji}, I
> think, is one of its pursuant responsibilities.

As usual, I need to remind you of in what sense
Lojban is a logical language — it is not that it
is "logical" in some popular sense; it is that
its grammar is based on Applied First Order
Predicate Logic and that is designed to make
logical inferences (as defined for that language)
transparent and uniform. What sense did you have
in mind?

> If you can find an example in which a
> non-abstract {xamgu1} or {xamgu2} makes sense,
> I will reconsider my position. But I've never
> (that I can recall) seen one, and none come
> immediately to mind.

Well, I (and most of the history of value theory)
has had no problem with saying things like
"Charles is good for Jane because he is kind to
her" and the like and that without meaning
"Charles' kindness to her is good for Jane."
That is, axiology has traditionally been rather
thing-oriented. Now, new theories may have come
in favor of another approach, but that does not
make the old systems fallacious (logically
defective); they are just different theories,
different analyses.

> je'u pe'i tu'a lo pavyseljirna cu xamgu tu'a
> loi lisri

Yes, I suppose you do. I would say things about
unicorns were good for stories as well as for
thing about stories.

> .ini'ibo lo pavyseljirna cu zasti fi tu'a lo
> menli

I don't see this as following from any logical
point, nor do I see things about minds being a
metaphysics (though I have to admit that what
that means exactly in Lojban — and
"epistemology" too — is less than clear). There
are surely worlds in which unicorns exist and
even more in which there are unicorns, but that
seems unrelated to either logic or minds.

> > places ({nitcu2}, say). The latter involves
>
> > using transparent places with intensional
> object
>
> > mentioned in place of opaque places with
>
> > extensional objects. It has a double
> advantage:
>
> I don't understand your use of the words
> opaque and transparent. In what sense
> do you mean them?
>
Standard terminology. An opaque occurrence of a
term is one that does not (necessarily) justify
an existential generalization nor applications of
Leibniz's Law (substitution for identicals).
Thus, from the fact that I need a unicorn, I
cannot infer that there is a unicorn that I need
and (in the appropriate world)from the fact that
I need Superman I cannot infer that I need Clark
Kent.

> > I don't have a "preview" button and, if I
> did, it
>
> It's part of the form... right next to the
> "post" button. (I refer, in particular, to
> inclusion of ">" at random places in quoted
> lines.)

I am not replying on wiki but just regular email.
No buttons, mainly, I suspect, because this is
not in any way marked up. The wandering ">" are
a(n annoying) feature of the "Reply" feature of
my browser, which puts everything in very short
lines .